A summary on the article by David Parker as put by Namrata Ramaprasad.
Over the last forty years,
critics have debated profusely on whether Chaucer’s characters in the
Canterbury Tales are portrayed as individuals we in the modern era may relate
to those in the novels published now, or simply as icons that were designed to
cater to the fourteenth century readers. It is true that readers have responded
quite differently to the characters of literature and compared them to those in
their lives. But if the theory of iconization is to be believed, then the
characters of the tales cannot be regarded as individuals. The fourteenth
century readers must have made a distinction between the portrayal of Alisoun
of Bath and the people they encountered in society.
The easiest way to try and
bridge the gap of the distinction is to study the lives of the fourteenth
century readers as they were in the era of aristocrats, saints, kings and such.
To them, illustrated facts we more understandable if explained through an
experience of an individual, which can be classified as an older version of a
biography. In the introduction of his poem, The Bruce, John Barbour talks about
the art of biography, which is quite acceptable, as he announces his intention
of telling a “suthfast story”.
The poem has a homelitic
value to the reader, but he believes in it only if he thinks it to be of use to
him in his experiences. The difference between a modern and a fourteenth
century biography is that the latter explained the moral consequences and
implications of it to human behaviour, but did not separate the psychology from
the ethical value. The writers and biographers of that age used a character of
moral interest, but did not detach it from human experience, thus confusing the
modern readers to believe that that characters were not individuals, but icons.
The fact is that the
fourteenth century readers understood the characters differently, when they
were encountered in life or in literature. While the twenty first century
focuses on the individualistic perspective of the characters, the fourteenth
century focuses on the likeness. If an experience is available for them to
relate to, they would consider the individuals approach.
It is safe to say that a
reconstruction of the iconographical theory can help in the justification that
the characters that Chaucer molded by mentioning their name, age, sex,
appearance, history, etc were maybe meant to be dissociated with the people
encountered in daily life in that age, thus making them an icon of sorts, not
individuals.
The pilgrims in the
Canterbury Tales are probably to be taken as individuals, though some as The
Knight, The Parson, etc are less individualised. This is because they were to
some degree, idealised, which meant that they emulated some moral value which
greatly suppressed individualism but in that age, people did live up to their
ideals. Chaucer, if only in his irony, did possess some kind of poetic
apprehension to the individual personality. The ironies were little when it
came to the pilgrims, but were definitely present. For example, in the General
Prologue:
But, for to speken of hire
conscience,
She was so charitable and so
pitous
She wolde wepe, if that she
saugh a mous
Kaught in a trappe, if it
were dead or bledde,
Of smale houndes hadde she
that she fedde
With rosted flessh, or milk
and wastel-breed
But soore wepte she if oon of
hem were deed,
Or if men smoot it with a
yerde smerte,
And al was conscience and
tendre herte.
The irony and the generosity
is seen simultaneously as the reader must make judgements of the Prioress who
had a love for animals, which was a misdirection of Christian charity and also
against the icon theory, see her complexity as an individual.
The wife of bath was a character
whose individuality was not easy to explain. She had a sense of living life
large and that wasn’t evident in her speech or her behaviour. Critics like
Walter Clyde Curry’s analysis’ suggests that her behaviour may be explained as
Chaucer’s way of only sticking to moral and psychological types of characters
or that he truly wanted to explain the behaviour and character of the
individual.
Another critic, Charles A.
Owen Jr. points out that even though the Wife of Bath professed female
sovereignty in marriages, the heroine of the tale dint follow her example, and
the wife itself is doubted of having exercised “maisterie” over her fifth
husband if the following lines are to be believed.:
After that day we hadden
never debaat.
God helpe me so, I was to hym
as kynde
As any wyf from Denmark unto Ynde,
And also trewe, and so was he
to me.
Whether the Wife could be
considered an individual is debated upon, but Chaucer did give the readers a
glimpse into her inner, personal life. David Parker feels that the Wife of Bath
cannot be trusted completely as there is a wide range of contrasts in two
passages of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue:
But atte laste, with muchel
care and two,
We fille accorded by us
selven two,
He yaf me al the bridel in
myn hond,
To han the governance of hous
and lond,
And of his tonge and of his
hond also;
And made hym brenne his book
anon right tho.
And whan that hadde geten
unto me,
By maistriem al the
soveraynetee,
And that he seyde, “myn owene
trewe wyf,
Do as thee lust the terme of
al they lyf;
Keep thyn honour, and keep
eek myn estaat”-
After that day we hadden
never debaat.
God helpe me so, I was to hym
as kynde
As any wyf from Denmark unto Ynde,
And also trewe, and so was he
to me.
This passage, three hundred
lines earlier, gives a different perspective:
Now of my fifthe housbonde
wol I telle.
God lete his soule nevere
come in helle!
And yet as he to me the
mooste shrewe;
That feele I on my ribbes al
by rewe,
And evere shal unto myn
ending day.
But in oure bed he was so
fressh and gay,
And therewithal so well
kounde he me glose,
Whan that he wolde han my
bele chose,
He koude wynne again my love
anon.
I trowe I loved hym best, for
that
he was of his love dangerous
to me.
We wommen han, if that I shal
nat lye,
In this matere a queynte
fantasye;
Wayte what thyng we may nat
lightly have,
Thereafter wol we crie al day
and crave.
Forbade us thyng, and that
desiren we;
Preesse on us faste, and
thanne wol we fle.
With daunger oute we al oure
chaffare;
Greet prees at market maketh
deere ware,
And to greet cheep is holde
al litel prys;
This knoweth every womman
that is wys.
In the two passages, the
first gives an account of the cherished moments with her fifth husband, where
she mentions that she loved him the most, being contradictory of the fact that
in the second passage, she says that her time with him was that of hell. The
Wife seems to have wanted the best of both worlds, suggesting that she was both
in command as well as obedient.
The former passage gives us a
gist of how she felt that a husband only needed to give in to his wife’s
commands to make a marriage work. The latter, showing that she did not remember
being in command, rather remembers being beaten profusely and then won over by
a round of love making. The passage suggests that her assumption of “maistrie”
was untrue, or the facts seemed to have been clouded with doubt. Perhaps it was
because she wasn’t as free as she believed, or the terms weren’t agreeable at
that time.
From what she mentions of her
former marriages and the “daunger” she encountered, she contradicts her
statement of “maistrie”, showing she had little but contempt for Jankyn. This “daunger” was something the woman inflicted upon
others, and vice versa. There is enough evidence that the Wife should have been
frustrated in achieving “maistrie” as taking the advice she gave others, this
would harm a good marriage.
If we are to accept the Wife
of Bath as a character, it would be one that cannot be trusted. Chaucer shows
her as a character who cherishes the fantasies of her own life, as they please
her and they shock others. But she is sadly caught up in her own words, as she
makes contradictory statements about her past. In this aftermath, we are shown
a part of her inner, more personal life.
If we decide not to accept
her as a character, then it questions the fourteenth century readers outlook
again of having a distinction between the icons and the people of daily life,
that they would refuse to create a human identity for her, which would create a
riot.
Another problem is that with
the Wife’s inconsistencies, the least that can be asked is for the reader to
portray her to be consistent with her austerity, according to the
iconographical theory, comparing her with her era’s paintings, where the body
would be turned one way and the head another, showing that her illustration
would be quite limited.
If she is to be considered an
individual, then it is given that Chaucer was only depicting her as other
fourteenth century scholars would.
The unusual notion is that
the Wife of Bath, like other characters, was able to survive as a distinct
individual into the twenty-first century, where the difficulties of the
recognition have drastically reduced. It was Chaucer’s talent that he was able
to create such a character who was not in harmony, but in conflict with it
self. Her traits may be unfamiliar to the modern reader, but it abstractness is
certainly recognizable. Hats off to Chaucer, as he molded her character, with
such precision, into conditions that are timeless.
